3 Survivors. Castle. #Norwich
We're calling them Zombies now. For a while we called them infected, Others, stuff like that. I guess for a while we treated them like humans but we took a vote on it and we're calling them Zombies now.
Alice and I argued for. Mark argued against. We said it was easier not to care about the heads we're breaking if they're not human. Mark said it's scarier being attacked by animals. Like, you can't reason with them and you can't understand why they're doing it so you just panic. I pointed out that that's kind of what happens when the Zombies attack us, so we won the vote. I reckon Mark was bitten by a dog as a child or something.
I'll post a link to this on twitter. Call it #zombies and #infected. Maybe someone else will look for the hashtag and find this post, maybe get in contact with us. Unlikely. Disease and Bite were trending topics for a while, but now the only posts are of the stlye "3 survivors, brixton academy #london" and those are getting rarer. I'm the only person I've seen with a #norwich tag. That's how Mark found me. "Alone. Female toilets Playhouse #norwich", updated from my phone before the network went down.
In my defense, had the male toilets been an option, I would have hidden there instead. Had I the choice I wouldn't have chosen toilets at all. Alice, however, will never let me live this down.
We look like we belong in comics, the three of us, dressed like the world's worst superhero team. Like we decided to do 'Kick-Ass' for halloween at the last minute. We raided sports shops and specialty shops and any shop we wanted to. The zombies move pretty slow so it's not been a problem losing them. There're less in the city centre than you'd think; the infection broke here late evening, after the shops had all closed. Terrorism's the theory we all agree on. Only way to explain how it happened everywhere all at once. You'd think they'd've unleashed it during the day, when everyone was out and about, but I guess it was still daytime in America, and we're not the prime target.
Actually, we don't look as bad now as we did a few days ago. The shin pads were the first to go. I'm not sure now why I ever thought they'd be a good idea. And we ditched the American Football helmets early on. Field of vision's more important. Speed and wits are our best defenses. Kevlar gloves are my best find. While being bitten is the potential future that keeps me up at night, broken glass is the more common foe. But I guess if you're reading this, you've already figured this stuff out.
"This is a baseball bat. It's like a pony, except for two things: One. You won't need to feed it as much hay and two. It's a baseball bat." Alice told me, on the second day. "You aim at their heads and every cell in your brain will tell you to shut your eyes before impact. Don't. If your swing misses you're off balance and probably won't get time for a second attempt."
She was right. It's horrible, seeing a man's face cave in. The sound of the bone breaking. The warmth of the blood that sprays back against you. You never, ever want to see that happen, to know it's your fault. But if you look away, if you don't watch your aim, you give them time to fight back and time is all they need.
"With your weak girl arms you'll probably only be able to bruise them but it should give you a chance to run away."
She was wrong there, it's surprising how fragile skulls seem. In my head I take a step back from the action. It's a weird, lucid panic. My limbs do exactly what they need to while my brain watches like it's some documentary. "And here we have another zombie. This one is wearing a hard hat. Perhaps a sign of some primitive survival instinct. Maybe they're getting smarter. No wait, it's a construction worker. Probably a few more like this about then." Does anyone else get this?
Anyway. We're in Norwich, at the Castle. Not the pub, the actual castle. It would be so cool if it wasn't this tragic. Supplies are running low so we'll be making a run for Tesco tomorrow. Will let you know if we all make it. Join us here if you can. Contact us if you can.
Wednesday 13 April 2011
BLITEOTW 2008
It's odd but the thing I find strangest about this whole situation is not the zombies, it's that I don't mind that I'm naked.
Pick any day in history before today and I think I'd do a lot to avoid walking through the city center without any clothes then but the crowds today, they're not like the crowds from any other day. At a glance maybe they look people, but anything more than a glance and you can see they're clearly not. For a start, they don't move right. Take a person and string up his limbs like a thunderbird. Not all of them; leave an arm or a leg hanging uselessly. Then break his neck and cut his flesh and call his mother a bitch. Broken and graceless and angry, that's how they move.
Worse than how they move is how they smell. And you can't get rid of it. The city is rotting, all of it. Not just the centre where they've gathered but everywhere they've been. Like this building; I don't think they've been here since the early hours of the morning but still I'm writing this with a cloth over my mouth so I'm not sick again. It might be how they've been following me; a trail of my vomit. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. Maybe there's just so many of them now that I can't help but keep running into them.
Zombies have risen and I'm worried I might be a little paranoid. Heh.
It could be different packs. Is packs the right word? Anyway, it could be different ones. I work at. No. I used to work at, I guess. I used to work at a cinema and it's strange how short a time you have to be there serving people before they all start to look the same. And thats when they were people with thoughts and emotions and personalities. These things are less than animals, I've no idea how anyone could hope to tell them apart.
Except when you see one you know. Knew. You recognise them and then you're sick again, cloth or no. I lost all food hours ago; it's just bile coming up now and even that's starting to run dry.
I should tell you things. Where I am now, where this all started. You might be wondering why I'm naked. You might not be there at all. Far as I know I'm the last one left. I guess I'm writing this for aliens? In the future, when they come and see a rotted planet and wonder what happened, they'll log onto my livejournal and be like "hey, check it out. More zombies. Humans this time."
No, I'm not writing this for aliens. I'm writing this because I'm sitting in someone else's living room with the curtains drawn and I heard a noise upstairs and I don't think it's one of them but I don't want to go up there to look for clothes and their internet was working but there's nothing new online so I had to write something.
I saw The Happening last night. M Night Shyamalan's latest film. Last film, I should say. It wasn't very good. It could have been scarier. God, I'd love it if this was as scary as that film. So much wasted potential. Can't stand Mark Wahlberg. Guess I should tag this 'film review', right? Anyway, on the walk back I took the quiet roads 'cause I hate the drunks along Prince of Wales. There were police and flashing lights everywhere. I figured it was just a fight that got out of hand or something, but now I'm wondering if it was the start of this. I might've heard screams or gunshots, but I don't know, that could be my memory playing tricks on me. I'm tired, by the way, and I'm really not thinking straight.
I was in the bath when I definitely heard screams. Then this thing came through the door and there was splashing and blood and water was everywhere. It was strong but it was clumsy. It slipped and hit its head but I couldn't get to my room because another one was there, so I grabbed a knife and was out the kitchen window. Running all day. They're not fast, but they don't stop.
So I headed out the city but they chased me back in. I went another way but there they were. Again and again, herding me back. I think I got past them this time. Sometimes if you hide and don't make a sound, don't even breathe, they don't notice you. Sometimes.
So I'm here at the internet, where I always end up, and I'm the last one online. It's supposed to bring the whole world closer together but when I am the whole world, there's not a lot it can do. God, I've never felt so alone.
Alone and naked.
Last post. I win.
Pick any day in history before today and I think I'd do a lot to avoid walking through the city center without any clothes then but the crowds today, they're not like the crowds from any other day. At a glance maybe they look people, but anything more than a glance and you can see they're clearly not. For a start, they don't move right. Take a person and string up his limbs like a thunderbird. Not all of them; leave an arm or a leg hanging uselessly. Then break his neck and cut his flesh and call his mother a bitch. Broken and graceless and angry, that's how they move.
Worse than how they move is how they smell. And you can't get rid of it. The city is rotting, all of it. Not just the centre where they've gathered but everywhere they've been. Like this building; I don't think they've been here since the early hours of the morning but still I'm writing this with a cloth over my mouth so I'm not sick again. It might be how they've been following me; a trail of my vomit. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. Maybe there's just so many of them now that I can't help but keep running into them.
Zombies have risen and I'm worried I might be a little paranoid. Heh.
It could be different packs. Is packs the right word? Anyway, it could be different ones. I work at. No. I used to work at, I guess. I used to work at a cinema and it's strange how short a time you have to be there serving people before they all start to look the same. And thats when they were people with thoughts and emotions and personalities. These things are less than animals, I've no idea how anyone could hope to tell them apart.
Except when you see one you know. Knew. You recognise them and then you're sick again, cloth or no. I lost all food hours ago; it's just bile coming up now and even that's starting to run dry.
I should tell you things. Where I am now, where this all started. You might be wondering why I'm naked. You might not be there at all. Far as I know I'm the last one left. I guess I'm writing this for aliens? In the future, when they come and see a rotted planet and wonder what happened, they'll log onto my livejournal and be like "hey, check it out. More zombies. Humans this time."
No, I'm not writing this for aliens. I'm writing this because I'm sitting in someone else's living room with the curtains drawn and I heard a noise upstairs and I don't think it's one of them but I don't want to go up there to look for clothes and their internet was working but there's nothing new online so I had to write something.
I saw The Happening last night. M Night Shyamalan's latest film. Last film, I should say. It wasn't very good. It could have been scarier. God, I'd love it if this was as scary as that film. So much wasted potential. Can't stand Mark Wahlberg. Guess I should tag this 'film review', right? Anyway, on the walk back I took the quiet roads 'cause I hate the drunks along Prince of Wales. There were police and flashing lights everywhere. I figured it was just a fight that got out of hand or something, but now I'm wondering if it was the start of this. I might've heard screams or gunshots, but I don't know, that could be my memory playing tricks on me. I'm tired, by the way, and I'm really not thinking straight.
I was in the bath when I definitely heard screams. Then this thing came through the door and there was splashing and blood and water was everywhere. It was strong but it was clumsy. It slipped and hit its head but I couldn't get to my room because another one was there, so I grabbed a knife and was out the kitchen window. Running all day. They're not fast, but they don't stop.
So I headed out the city but they chased me back in. I went another way but there they were. Again and again, herding me back. I think I got past them this time. Sometimes if you hide and don't make a sound, don't even breathe, they don't notice you. Sometimes.
So I'm here at the internet, where I always end up, and I'm the last one online. It's supposed to bring the whole world closer together but when I am the whole world, there's not a lot it can do. God, I've never felt so alone.
Alone and naked.
Last post. I win.
BLITEOTW 2007
Is anybody reading this?
(10:52am) It seems to have died down a bit now, so I think it's safe to write this. I'm not really sure what's going on. Sorry if this is a bit incoherent, but we didn't get much sleep here.
Late last night, we started hearing noises somewhere outside. We figured it was a party at first, but now I think it was just screaming. Ade went outside to have a look, and there were all these guys just wandering around. One of them started towards Ade, and he said the guy just really freaked him out, so he came back inside. Thing is, the guy just started hammering on the door. We tried calling the police a few times, but the line was always engaged. Anyway, we turned the lights off and stayed quiet and eventually the guy got bored and went away. For maybe an hour or so, then he was back, knocking on the door again. So yeah, not much sleep. It's been quiet out there for a couple of hours now.
(11:59am) Ade says there's bodies out there lying in the road. I don't want to go look. We still can't get through to the police from the house phone. None of us can get a signal on our mobiles.
I'm scared, you know. I just want to call home. The BBC news website hasn't updated since yesterday and I don't know why but that's creeping me out more than anything.
(14:24) WHERE THE FUCK ARE ALL THE PEOPLE? The body Ade saw has gone. I never saw it, but there's a big red stain on the ground marking where it was.
(16:32) The plan was to go to Somerfield and grab as much canned food as we could. We barely made it to the shop and back. Our road was clear of those things. They're not people; we know that now. Our road was clear so we thought maybe they'd moved on. Bastards were waiting just around the corner. The Avenues down from Colman, swarming with them. We broke in the back of the shop, so we didn't have to go out where they'd see us. I cut my hand scrambling over the fence, and maybe they could smell the blood. I don't know. Maybe they just saw us in the shop.
Sammy and me ran straight back, dropping most of the stuff on the way. Ade led them off, down towards South Park. That was almost forty minutes ago, and he's still not back.
(16:53) Hazel's here. I'd forgotten she was coming back today, with everything that's happened. Nearly shat myself when I heard footsteps on the gravel outside. She says she had to abandon the car a while back. Ran the rest of the way here. She says it's dead out there. There's cars left in the road, and half the houses have their doors open or kicked in. We've started boarding up the windows. There are too many damn windows down here.
(18:36) Ade's back. There's blood on him and he's not speaking. Sammy said it looks like something bit him. He's sitting in his room at the moment. It's dark 'cause we covered all the windows and won't turn the lights on. Sammy's in there with him; she doesn't want to him to be alone.
(21:08) I guess it's getting dark outside now. I don't know; we found some duct tape and we've sealed up most of the cracks around the boards, so we can put the light on in here without attracting those things. I knocked on Ade's door earlier but there was no response. I guess they're sleeping. I'll wake them up later so they can take watch.
(22:35) I'm not scared anymore. I'm too tired to be scared. Ade and Sammy still aren't answering the door
(23:47) sammys dead and ades one of them now. i went into his room to see wake them up. im so fucking tired but sammys dead and ades one of them. he followed me and i think he's outside my room right now. I pulled the bookcase in front of the door, so hes not getting in. sammys dead and ades on of them and all i want to do is sleep. Theres half a bottle of coke in here and thats it. after that ive got no food or water. i dont even have a knife or anything. i should be scared but im not. i'm just numb. I'm going to go to sleep now. Mabye they'll get in while im sleeping. maybe I wont wake up.
I just want to call home.
(10:52am) It seems to have died down a bit now, so I think it's safe to write this. I'm not really sure what's going on. Sorry if this is a bit incoherent, but we didn't get much sleep here.
Late last night, we started hearing noises somewhere outside. We figured it was a party at first, but now I think it was just screaming. Ade went outside to have a look, and there were all these guys just wandering around. One of them started towards Ade, and he said the guy just really freaked him out, so he came back inside. Thing is, the guy just started hammering on the door. We tried calling the police a few times, but the line was always engaged. Anyway, we turned the lights off and stayed quiet and eventually the guy got bored and went away. For maybe an hour or so, then he was back, knocking on the door again. So yeah, not much sleep. It's been quiet out there for a couple of hours now.
(11:59am) Ade says there's bodies out there lying in the road. I don't want to go look. We still can't get through to the police from the house phone. None of us can get a signal on our mobiles.
I'm scared, you know. I just want to call home. The BBC news website hasn't updated since yesterday and I don't know why but that's creeping me out more than anything.
(14:24) WHERE THE FUCK ARE ALL THE PEOPLE? The body Ade saw has gone. I never saw it, but there's a big red stain on the ground marking where it was.
(16:32) The plan was to go to Somerfield and grab as much canned food as we could. We barely made it to the shop and back. Our road was clear of those things. They're not people; we know that now. Our road was clear so we thought maybe they'd moved on. Bastards were waiting just around the corner. The Avenues down from Colman, swarming with them. We broke in the back of the shop, so we didn't have to go out where they'd see us. I cut my hand scrambling over the fence, and maybe they could smell the blood. I don't know. Maybe they just saw us in the shop.
Sammy and me ran straight back, dropping most of the stuff on the way. Ade led them off, down towards South Park. That was almost forty minutes ago, and he's still not back.
(16:53) Hazel's here. I'd forgotten she was coming back today, with everything that's happened. Nearly shat myself when I heard footsteps on the gravel outside. She says she had to abandon the car a while back. Ran the rest of the way here. She says it's dead out there. There's cars left in the road, and half the houses have their doors open or kicked in. We've started boarding up the windows. There are too many damn windows down here.
(18:36) Ade's back. There's blood on him and he's not speaking. Sammy said it looks like something bit him. He's sitting in his room at the moment. It's dark 'cause we covered all the windows and won't turn the lights on. Sammy's in there with him; she doesn't want to him to be alone.
(21:08) I guess it's getting dark outside now. I don't know; we found some duct tape and we've sealed up most of the cracks around the boards, so we can put the light on in here without attracting those things. I knocked on Ade's door earlier but there was no response. I guess they're sleeping. I'll wake them up later so they can take watch.
(22:35) I'm not scared anymore. I'm too tired to be scared. Ade and Sammy still aren't answering the door
(23:47) sammys dead and ades one of them now. i went into his room to see wake them up. im so fucking tired but sammys dead and ades one of them. he followed me and i think he's outside my room right now. I pulled the bookcase in front of the door, so hes not getting in. sammys dead and ades on of them and all i want to do is sleep. Theres half a bottle of coke in here and thats it. after that ive got no food or water. i dont even have a knife or anything. i should be scared but im not. i'm just numb. I'm going to go to sleep now. Mabye they'll get in while im sleeping. maybe I wont wake up.
I just want to call home.
BLITEOTW - June 13th
Back in 2007 the blog My Elves Are Different launched 'Blog Like It's The End Of The World', a day on which anyone interested with a blog posted like a zombie apocalypse was happening around them. In 2008 the website Blue Moon Rising took over. I was kinda hoping the premise would be different but it seems everyone just loves zombies. I missed 2009 because I am quite daft and completely forgot, but remembered in time for 2010, by which time facebook had taken over and seemed the best place to run from. Facebook remains strong and the group for this year's event - taking place as always on June 13th - can be found here.
To make it look like I update this site regularly, and so I don't lose them, I'm going to copy over my '07, '08 and '10 entries from my livejournal, where they were originally posted. And while I've got you reading my stuff, check out a piece of flash fiction I wrote for 365tomorrows.
To make it look like I update this site regularly, and so I don't lose them, I'm going to copy over my '07, '08 and '10 entries from my livejournal, where they were originally posted. And while I've got you reading my stuff, check out a piece of flash fiction I wrote for 365tomorrows.
Sunday 20 March 2011
Dragon Age II
I've only been playing it for about thirty hours - which isn't a lot for a BioWare game - but I'm a little bored of Dragon Age II already. I'm going to talk about what it got right and what it sadly got wrong. The aim here isn't to discourage anyone, let me say right from the outset I do enjoy this game, I do support game studios that value the importance of good writing and I will absolutely be buying Dragon Age III. I'm just disappointed this game hasn't lived up to the promise of Dragon Age: Origins or the Mass Effect series. It's possible this post will contain some spoilers for DA2 and other BioWare games, but I haven't planned what I'm going to say so I'm not sure yet.
First up, let's talk Moral Choices. This is a key part of BioWare games and they got it just right for the Mass Effect series, but they've taken a step back here with Dragon Age. In their earlier games, like Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire, the game provided you with a number of side quests which always had two possible ways to complete. One where you made a small sacrifice - time, items or money - to help someone out, the other where you selfishly took advantage of someone, teaching them that life is hard and they should be stronger. The choice you made would shift your character towards either the Light Side/Open Palm or Dark Side/Closed Fist. It should be noted that while it often seemed that way, the Light Side or Way of the Open Palm was not always a 'Good' choice and the Dark Side not always the 'Evil' one.
The two ongoing franchises, Mass Effect and Dragon Age, took similar but slightly different routes. In Mass Effect you play a heroic character, there is no doubt about that, and the choices offered represent two paths your hero can follow: a noble Paragon seeking to smooth Humanity's ascent into galactic politics or a ruthless Renegade prepared to do anything to protect Humanity's interests. Yes, making a Renegade choice might mean watching your character shoot an unarmed man in the back but at least it always felt like it was to serve a higher purpose.
Dragon Age is full of moral choices to be made, but most of the time the choice is Be A Hero or Be An Asshole. Your decision affects the plot of the game and affects your companions' opinions of you, but there's no personal scale of Light vs Dark or similar and this is where Dragon Age suffers. In Mass Effect for the most part you are encouraged to pick a side and stick with it, keeping your character consistent throughout the game to unlock Paragon or Renegade rewards - having high levels of Paragon or Renegade would open new conversation options, new chances to shoot that unarmed civilian in a cut scene. It would, and this is important, make the story better.
In Dragon Age you are instead encouraged to pander to the whims of your party members. My character's sister and lover are both mages so when they're around it's best to pretend I care deeply for the freedom of the mages. The two warriors I've encountered in the game so far are both distrustful of mages, so when I'm around them it's best I pretend to support the Templars, an organisation seeking to protect the world from the dangers of magic. I don't want to pretend, I want my character to stick to her own philosophy and not be punished for it. Sure, having a party member really dislike you gives them a benefit just as much as if they really love you, but I want to play a good character and good characters are nice to their friends even when they disagree with them. If I want to get a companion to become, in in-game terms, my Rival I'd have to turn down their side quests, denying me some of the best bits of the game.
So yeah, lets talk quests now. Dragon Age 2 splits quests into Primary, Secondary, Companion and Side. Primary being important to the main plot of the game, secondary being your standard opportunity to run around exploring the world. Companion's quests are, as mentioned, your chance to learn more about your little circle of friends and Side Quests happen when you accidently stumble over an item and can return it to its proper owner. They kinda suck.
I'm a way into the second act of the game and things have only just started to get important to anyone except the main character. In the framing device, cut scenes where a companion character of yours tells your history, you keep being referred to as the Champion but for the entire first act your character is a poor refugee trying to scrape together enough money to go on a treasure hunting expedition. A champion indeed. Jade Empire and Baldur's Gate start with your character attacked by unknown foes, seeking your death for unknown reasons. Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins get a little more epic, with terrible forces threatening entire cultures. Dragon Age II starts you as a refugee from the events of Dragon Age: Origins. There is, sure, an initial need for mere survival, but slowly greed becomes the driving element of the plot. I've always played the Good character, helping others in need wherever I can, but it's only now that being a capital-H Hero is becoming important to the story.
Secondary Quests add depth to the world. Help the elves with this ritual, help the mages escape that imprisonment, help the guard stop those criminals. There's no thought required for any of these. I can't say I remember that many problem-solving skills required for other BioWare games but it seems far too obvious to me here. A good example of this is a quest given to you by a templar investigating a series of murders he believes are connected. The guard won't help him so it's down to you. He gives you all the information he's uncovered so far, including a note telling you basically to check out a building in the foundry district. From there you're led to a house in the noble district which if you choose to explore rather than heading straight to where the minimap is telling you the plot will happen you will find to be full of clues. Only, the clues aren't for you the player, they're for your character. You don't have to work anything out at all, it'll all be explained to you. BioWare have seriously missed a trick here. An actual murder mystery to solve? A house full of clues, a serial killer on the loose and a suspect with questionable excuses? I would break out a bottle of scotch, complain about dames, put on my detective hat and spend all night chasing down that thing. There's three or four hours of gameplay there totally unrelated to the main plot that would add so much to my immersion into the game and connection to my character. Instead I get a new quest marker to follow.
Actually, they don't all kinda suck. I like the Companion quests. I don't like that they drive your moral choices, but I do like the companions. In Dragon Age and Jade Empire they sat around in your camp waiting for attention. In Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect they waited for you on your spaceship. In all these cases it really worked for the gameplay, giving a place to chat to characters if you wanted more dialogue and depth. In Dragon Age 2 they don't all clump together, instead they've got houses, homes and hovels to live in. I love that, it adds a lot to the world. Merrill has a cosy little house with the other elves in a poor part of town. Anders spends his time at a clinic healing the sick. Fenris squats in a mansion belonging to his former master, waiting for revenge. I love it. Companion quests are where I really feel a lot of thought and design has gone into the world. The companions each have fully fleshed out personalities and are more than just spare Warriors, Rogues or Mages for the party.
Finally, those fucking 'Side Quests'. Really? I'm exploring a cave (more on that in a second) and in a chest I find a scroll about some long forgotten religion. Instantly the character knows who it belongs to and where to find them so I can return it for a little bit of cash. Things like this happen all the fucking time. Fetch quests as a standard were annoying, sure, but taking out half the journey does not solve the problem. These don't add anything to the game in terms of plot development, background depth or gameplay enjoyment. BioWare phoned this one in and that's disappointing.
So yeah, I'm exploring a cave and in a chest I find a scroll. I know where to look for the chest because All The Caves Are Exactly The Same. Dragon Age: Origins took up about twenty gigs on my computer. Dragon Age 2 takes up about five because they reuse the same locations over and over and over. I completed one quest with the climactic fight taking place in the deepest heart of a cave on the Wounded Coast. Exploring the area after the battle I found a little room off to the side with a beautiful ceiling of glowing blue lights. A spiritual retreat for the evil mage I'd just defeated, perhaps? I felt slightly betrayed by the game when a later quest led me to the exact same place in a completely different cave, with the same hidden room of mystic glow-wormy light. This same betrayal of meaning occurs in the noble mansions dotted around the city of Kirkwall, the Warehouses on its docks and its many back alleys where secret meetings, ambushes and oh hey, main plot events take place.
Whenever Pixar announce a new film I get so worried that it won't be a work of art. I was absolutely sure that Toy Story 3 would be just okay. They'd had a string of increasingly good, Oscar winning hits with Ratatouille, WALL-E and the absolutely wonderful Up (at some point I might write a post about just why I love Pixar so much), it seemed impossible they could live up to their own standards. This was even the best time for them to fail since no-one expects a sequel to be as good as its predecessors. I mean, sure Toy Story II was arguably better than Toy Story I, but a second sequel? No chance. Well, I feel the same way about BioWare games. (I'm ignoring The Old Republic because it's Massively Multiplayer just like I'm ignoring Cars 2 because it's, well, Cars.)
Pixar came through for us, BioWare didn't. Dragon Age II is the Toy Story I expected, not the one I got. I like the game, I really do, but I don't love it. I'm not the hero of the story, just the protagonist. I'm not taking apart a gang of thieves to make the city safer, I'm doing it so the captain of the guard likes me a little more. I'm not exploring a world, I'm following quest markers around a single - albeit quite characterful - city. And they had better be leading somewhere good BioWare, because you haven't wowed me yet.
First up, let's talk Moral Choices. This is a key part of BioWare games and they got it just right for the Mass Effect series, but they've taken a step back here with Dragon Age. In their earlier games, like Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire, the game provided you with a number of side quests which always had two possible ways to complete. One where you made a small sacrifice - time, items or money - to help someone out, the other where you selfishly took advantage of someone, teaching them that life is hard and they should be stronger. The choice you made would shift your character towards either the Light Side/Open Palm or Dark Side/Closed Fist. It should be noted that while it often seemed that way, the Light Side or Way of the Open Palm was not always a 'Good' choice and the Dark Side not always the 'Evil' one.
The two ongoing franchises, Mass Effect and Dragon Age, took similar but slightly different routes. In Mass Effect you play a heroic character, there is no doubt about that, and the choices offered represent two paths your hero can follow: a noble Paragon seeking to smooth Humanity's ascent into galactic politics or a ruthless Renegade prepared to do anything to protect Humanity's interests. Yes, making a Renegade choice might mean watching your character shoot an unarmed man in the back but at least it always felt like it was to serve a higher purpose.
Dragon Age is full of moral choices to be made, but most of the time the choice is Be A Hero or Be An Asshole. Your decision affects the plot of the game and affects your companions' opinions of you, but there's no personal scale of Light vs Dark or similar and this is where Dragon Age suffers. In Mass Effect for the most part you are encouraged to pick a side and stick with it, keeping your character consistent throughout the game to unlock Paragon or Renegade rewards - having high levels of Paragon or Renegade would open new conversation options, new chances to shoot that unarmed civilian in a cut scene. It would, and this is important, make the story better.
In Dragon Age you are instead encouraged to pander to the whims of your party members. My character's sister and lover are both mages so when they're around it's best to pretend I care deeply for the freedom of the mages. The two warriors I've encountered in the game so far are both distrustful of mages, so when I'm around them it's best I pretend to support the Templars, an organisation seeking to protect the world from the dangers of magic. I don't want to pretend, I want my character to stick to her own philosophy and not be punished for it. Sure, having a party member really dislike you gives them a benefit just as much as if they really love you, but I want to play a good character and good characters are nice to their friends even when they disagree with them. If I want to get a companion to become, in in-game terms, my Rival I'd have to turn down their side quests, denying me some of the best bits of the game.
So yeah, lets talk quests now. Dragon Age 2 splits quests into Primary, Secondary, Companion and Side. Primary being important to the main plot of the game, secondary being your standard opportunity to run around exploring the world. Companion's quests are, as mentioned, your chance to learn more about your little circle of friends and Side Quests happen when you accidently stumble over an item and can return it to its proper owner. They kinda suck.
I'm a way into the second act of the game and things have only just started to get important to anyone except the main character. In the framing device, cut scenes where a companion character of yours tells your history, you keep being referred to as the Champion but for the entire first act your character is a poor refugee trying to scrape together enough money to go on a treasure hunting expedition. A champion indeed. Jade Empire and Baldur's Gate start with your character attacked by unknown foes, seeking your death for unknown reasons. Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins get a little more epic, with terrible forces threatening entire cultures. Dragon Age II starts you as a refugee from the events of Dragon Age: Origins. There is, sure, an initial need for mere survival, but slowly greed becomes the driving element of the plot. I've always played the Good character, helping others in need wherever I can, but it's only now that being a capital-H Hero is becoming important to the story.
Secondary Quests add depth to the world. Help the elves with this ritual, help the mages escape that imprisonment, help the guard stop those criminals. There's no thought required for any of these. I can't say I remember that many problem-solving skills required for other BioWare games but it seems far too obvious to me here. A good example of this is a quest given to you by a templar investigating a series of murders he believes are connected. The guard won't help him so it's down to you. He gives you all the information he's uncovered so far, including a note telling you basically to check out a building in the foundry district. From there you're led to a house in the noble district which if you choose to explore rather than heading straight to where the minimap is telling you the plot will happen you will find to be full of clues. Only, the clues aren't for you the player, they're for your character. You don't have to work anything out at all, it'll all be explained to you. BioWare have seriously missed a trick here. An actual murder mystery to solve? A house full of clues, a serial killer on the loose and a suspect with questionable excuses? I would break out a bottle of scotch, complain about dames, put on my detective hat and spend all night chasing down that thing. There's three or four hours of gameplay there totally unrelated to the main plot that would add so much to my immersion into the game and connection to my character. Instead I get a new quest marker to follow.
Actually, they don't all kinda suck. I like the Companion quests. I don't like that they drive your moral choices, but I do like the companions. In Dragon Age and Jade Empire they sat around in your camp waiting for attention. In Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect they waited for you on your spaceship. In all these cases it really worked for the gameplay, giving a place to chat to characters if you wanted more dialogue and depth. In Dragon Age 2 they don't all clump together, instead they've got houses, homes and hovels to live in. I love that, it adds a lot to the world. Merrill has a cosy little house with the other elves in a poor part of town. Anders spends his time at a clinic healing the sick. Fenris squats in a mansion belonging to his former master, waiting for revenge. I love it. Companion quests are where I really feel a lot of thought and design has gone into the world. The companions each have fully fleshed out personalities and are more than just spare Warriors, Rogues or Mages for the party.
Finally, those fucking 'Side Quests'. Really? I'm exploring a cave (more on that in a second) and in a chest I find a scroll about some long forgotten religion. Instantly the character knows who it belongs to and where to find them so I can return it for a little bit of cash. Things like this happen all the fucking time. Fetch quests as a standard were annoying, sure, but taking out half the journey does not solve the problem. These don't add anything to the game in terms of plot development, background depth or gameplay enjoyment. BioWare phoned this one in and that's disappointing.
So yeah, I'm exploring a cave and in a chest I find a scroll. I know where to look for the chest because All The Caves Are Exactly The Same. Dragon Age: Origins took up about twenty gigs on my computer. Dragon Age 2 takes up about five because they reuse the same locations over and over and over. I completed one quest with the climactic fight taking place in the deepest heart of a cave on the Wounded Coast. Exploring the area after the battle I found a little room off to the side with a beautiful ceiling of glowing blue lights. A spiritual retreat for the evil mage I'd just defeated, perhaps? I felt slightly betrayed by the game when a later quest led me to the exact same place in a completely different cave, with the same hidden room of mystic glow-wormy light. This same betrayal of meaning occurs in the noble mansions dotted around the city of Kirkwall, the Warehouses on its docks and its many back alleys where secret meetings, ambushes and oh hey, main plot events take place.
Whenever Pixar announce a new film I get so worried that it won't be a work of art. I was absolutely sure that Toy Story 3 would be just okay. They'd had a string of increasingly good, Oscar winning hits with Ratatouille, WALL-E and the absolutely wonderful Up (at some point I might write a post about just why I love Pixar so much), it seemed impossible they could live up to their own standards. This was even the best time for them to fail since no-one expects a sequel to be as good as its predecessors. I mean, sure Toy Story II was arguably better than Toy Story I, but a second sequel? No chance. Well, I feel the same way about BioWare games. (I'm ignoring The Old Republic because it's Massively Multiplayer just like I'm ignoring Cars 2 because it's, well, Cars.)
Pixar came through for us, BioWare didn't. Dragon Age II is the Toy Story I expected, not the one I got. I like the game, I really do, but I don't love it. I'm not the hero of the story, just the protagonist. I'm not taking apart a gang of thieves to make the city safer, I'm doing it so the captain of the guard likes me a little more. I'm not exploring a world, I'm following quest markers around a single - albeit quite characterful - city. And they had better be leading somewhere good BioWare, because you haven't wowed me yet.
Thursday 17 March 2011
The BHA's Census Campaign
It's Census time! I love the census. I try to get interested in politics but sometimes it's really hard, even when the outcome affects me personally. Like, for example, privatisation. It seems pretty clear to me that everything absolutely essential to the continued success of our country should be not-for-profit and overseen by the government. I'm talking Healthcare, Education, Transport, Defense and Communication. Certainly other things as well, but that's not the focus of this post and I know how my brain works. If I let it run it'll keep coming up with new things I think should be nationalised and I'll feel uncomfortable if I don't include them. Emergency Services. The point is, whenever politicians and the media talk about privatising some of these essential services, I zone out. It's very important, it's something that does concern me but it's like watching the The Inbetweeners. Sheer embarrassment on behalf of everyone involved means I feel I ought to go make myself a drink, or maybe now's a good time for a toilet break and when I get back everything will be better and Simon won't be tripping over his words talking to girls and David will have found the money to pay the police.
But when it's Election time or Census time, everything changes. When it's voting time, I feel Invovled, like maybe my single vote on which way this country should head will Make A Difference. I tend to vote Lib Dem, so secretly I know that it won't and weren't we all a little surprised when the Lib Dems actually became important this time round? And don't we all wish they'd go back to being the sensible but unimportant party so we could feel good about voting for them?
This isn't an Election though, this is a Census. We're not choosing our representatives here, we're telling them who they represent, and that's still awesome and it's still important. It's important because political parties and pressure groups will use the information from the Census to forward their agendas. There are going to be people who look at this data and say "Well, we need the government to encourage more women to go into higher education" or "So many people drive to work in seperate cars, can we increase public transport or carpooling?" There are going to be people who look at the overwhelmingly large number of ethnically White citizens who identify as British and ignore the number of ethnically Black citizens who identify as the same, who will use the data to push what they see as Traditional Values and I what see as Blatant Racism.
That's how the Census works. It's open to abuse, but it is helpful. There's one question in particular I want to talk about. One question that I don't think should be on the census, that was introduced for the first time in 2001 and led to Jedi becoming a national in-joke. It's an optional question but that doesn't make it any better.
"What is your religion?"
Data from this question will be used by religious groups to push for an increase in state funding of faith schools and religious insititutions. It will be used by the government to justify that spending. I've made it pretty clear in the past that I'm a secularist and I don't think there should be any state funding at all of these things but I don't think the government is going to cut the ties completely any time soon - not least while the Church of England is still the Established religion in the country. The best we can do for now is ensure they have the correct data to work off.
If you're not religious, as the British Humanist Association's campaign slogan goes, for God's sake say so. This main focus of the campaign isn't aimed at me and it's not aimed at Britain's admittedly large religious population. It's aimed at people who consider themselves culturally of one religion but without the faith. Maybe you grew up in a Jewish household or went to a Christian school. Maybe you think the Bible is a good basis for an ethical society and we can just ignore all the bits about God. The phrasing of the question itself implies you have a religion, encourages you to select Christian or Jewish or Muslim or whatever but unless you actually believe in the religious aspects of that culture you should tick 'No religion'. If religion is not a significant aspect of your life, tick 'No religion'.
There is a second front to the Census Campaign, and this one is aimed at me and at the religiously apathetic. In 2001 I - along with nearly four hundred thousand other people - put down my religion as 'Jedi'. This was fun, this was fine, this was still officially counted as 'No religion' but the fact that I didn't tick that box meant Religious groups could use the low number of people who actually declared 'No religion' as a sign that Britain identifies as a God-fearing country. I've seen campaigns run this time encouraging people to declare Jedi, Heavy Metal and Dumbledore's Army - as well as many others - as their religion. This choice will still be counted as no religion, so just tick that box. Give a clear signal that you are not religious. By all means set your religious view on facebook as Heavy Metal but jokes are less funny the second time round and I'm sorry but the Jedis got there first on this one. Tick 'No religion' and move on.
The lovely folks at the BHA Census Campaign have given us a nice little list of some ways the 2001 census data for religion has been misused by government ministers to justify spending on religious groups, which you can read here.
But when it's Election time or Census time, everything changes. When it's voting time, I feel Invovled, like maybe my single vote on which way this country should head will Make A Difference. I tend to vote Lib Dem, so secretly I know that it won't and weren't we all a little surprised when the Lib Dems actually became important this time round? And don't we all wish they'd go back to being the sensible but unimportant party so we could feel good about voting for them?
This isn't an Election though, this is a Census. We're not choosing our representatives here, we're telling them who they represent, and that's still awesome and it's still important. It's important because political parties and pressure groups will use the information from the Census to forward their agendas. There are going to be people who look at this data and say "Well, we need the government to encourage more women to go into higher education" or "So many people drive to work in seperate cars, can we increase public transport or carpooling?" There are going to be people who look at the overwhelmingly large number of ethnically White citizens who identify as British and ignore the number of ethnically Black citizens who identify as the same, who will use the data to push what they see as Traditional Values and I what see as Blatant Racism.
That's how the Census works. It's open to abuse, but it is helpful. There's one question in particular I want to talk about. One question that I don't think should be on the census, that was introduced for the first time in 2001 and led to Jedi becoming a national in-joke. It's an optional question but that doesn't make it any better.
"What is your religion?"
Data from this question will be used by religious groups to push for an increase in state funding of faith schools and religious insititutions. It will be used by the government to justify that spending. I've made it pretty clear in the past that I'm a secularist and I don't think there should be any state funding at all of these things but I don't think the government is going to cut the ties completely any time soon - not least while the Church of England is still the Established religion in the country. The best we can do for now is ensure they have the correct data to work off.
If you're not religious, as the British Humanist Association's campaign slogan goes, for God's sake say so. This main focus of the campaign isn't aimed at me and it's not aimed at Britain's admittedly large religious population. It's aimed at people who consider themselves culturally of one religion but without the faith. Maybe you grew up in a Jewish household or went to a Christian school. Maybe you think the Bible is a good basis for an ethical society and we can just ignore all the bits about God. The phrasing of the question itself implies you have a religion, encourages you to select Christian or Jewish or Muslim or whatever but unless you actually believe in the religious aspects of that culture you should tick 'No religion'. If religion is not a significant aspect of your life, tick 'No religion'.
There is a second front to the Census Campaign, and this one is aimed at me and at the religiously apathetic. In 2001 I - along with nearly four hundred thousand other people - put down my religion as 'Jedi'. This was fun, this was fine, this was still officially counted as 'No religion' but the fact that I didn't tick that box meant Religious groups could use the low number of people who actually declared 'No religion' as a sign that Britain identifies as a God-fearing country. I've seen campaigns run this time encouraging people to declare Jedi, Heavy Metal and Dumbledore's Army - as well as many others - as their religion. This choice will still be counted as no religion, so just tick that box. Give a clear signal that you are not religious. By all means set your religious view on facebook as Heavy Metal but jokes are less funny the second time round and I'm sorry but the Jedis got there first on this one. Tick 'No religion' and move on.
The lovely folks at the BHA Census Campaign have given us a nice little list of some ways the 2001 census data for religion has been misused by government ministers to justify spending on religious groups, which you can read here.
Thursday 10 March 2011
A Statement of Change of Intent
I'm not entirely happy with the content I've been putting out these past two months. I've learned a fair amount about Alternative Voting and how much power the Queen actually has. I've learnt some stuff about the history of Gay Marriage and Civil Unions in the UK. One thing I still need to learn is whether 'learned' or 'learnt' is the correct past tense of Learn but by the time I finish writing this I'm sure curiosity will have gotten the better of me. I've learnt a whole bunch so this isn't a failure but I don't feel I've connected with my potential audience.
I'm not angry all the time. I'm not even angry a lot. Really, I can only think of two regular experiences I have that make me even a little angry. The first is an hour before my shift at work finishes. I'm feeling pretty angry then but I can't blog at work and by the time I get home it's become a mixture of relief and exhaustion.
The second is reading news online. I get angry at Creationists reading Pharyngula. I get angry at misogynists reading Feministe and its active verb sister Feministing. I get angry at the government reading Comment is Free and I get angry at bad journalism reading The Mail Online. I have places to go if I want to get angry at Videogames (The Escapist), Cinema (Rotten Tomatoes) or just Everyone (YouTube comments) but in every case the thing I'm angry about is up there on the web in a place far more people will see written by someone with a far greater understanding of the issues. Even in the Mail's case, where the writer is often the focus of the anger rather than someone to share discontent with, the chances are I've found this article through someone's response to it. I start writing something for my own blog and realise I've nothing to add to the conversation.
Here are some titles for posts I thought I wanted to write and then realised I really didn't. "The Census Campaign." "There Are Twenty-Six Bishops In The House of Lords." "Why Ellen Page is the best thing to happen to Feminist Cinema." "The Census Campaign." "Why James Cameron is the best thing to happen to Feminist Cinema." "Polyamorous Love: Where The Hell Do I Stand On This?" "Videogames as an Art Form." "The Census Campaign." "For the love Of God, people, read about The Census Campaign."
(The convention in British English seems to be 'learned' for the past tense and 'learnt' for the past participle so that should have read "I've learnt" both times up the top there. That's something I learned today.)
I don't have anything new to say. Perhaps it's worth putting someone else's arguments in my words to make me think about the issue. Perhaps it's just worth saying I support their cause. That second one would be true if more people read this blog, but my stats page suggests not a lot of people care about what I have to say. I know, this blog is only two months old, hasn't yet reached double digits in number of posts and I'm not exactly pushing it anywhere. A couple of nods on facebook and twitter, but nowhere beyond my online territory. My rationale for this falls somewhere between "I'm a perfectionist and don't want anyone reading my shit until it's flawless." and "I care far more about the opinion of strangers than I wish to admit and don't want anyone reading my shit until I can defend it." Either way, as much as I'd love everyone in the world to homepage this site, I don't want a larger readership until I'm comfortable with the direction this blog is headed.
The intent was to be angry, to give my words an emotional charge. That didn't work as I'd hoped. For me to be happier here, the intent needs to change.
The first post in this blog, the original statement of intent, is the post I'm happiest with. It's not angry at all. It's a lovely little tale of a time when I was young and lost and found a small place on the internet to shelter from the real world for a while. It's a story of growth and maturity, or so we thought since it seems maturing as a person does not mean shouting about politics instead of whining about girls. In fact, to jump from one to the other thinking it would instantly make my writing more worthwhile feels as immature as ever. Leaving LiveJournal was an important step in improving my writing, I have no doubt about that, but a complete paradigm shift wasn't the way to go.
There are some things that really do interest me, that I hope I could write about in personal, interesting ways and I think those should be the focus of the blog. Since starting this I've joined the British Humanist Association and some time before March 27th I really should get that post about the Census Campaign out. I've also spent a lot of time thinking about Video Games as an art form and as the future of entertainment. My opinions there are as strong - if not stronger - as my opinions on the monarchy. Certainly as much as I love voting and its systems (and guys: I seriously love voting) I have far more to say on the subject of Motion Controls.
The intent is changing. In time, when I think of a good one, the title will change but until then we can all sit here in polite silence, uncomfortably aware of the mismatch.
I'm not angry all the time. I'm not even angry a lot. Really, I can only think of two regular experiences I have that make me even a little angry. The first is an hour before my shift at work finishes. I'm feeling pretty angry then but I can't blog at work and by the time I get home it's become a mixture of relief and exhaustion.
The second is reading news online. I get angry at Creationists reading Pharyngula. I get angry at misogynists reading Feministe and its active verb sister Feministing. I get angry at the government reading Comment is Free and I get angry at bad journalism reading The Mail Online. I have places to go if I want to get angry at Videogames (The Escapist), Cinema (Rotten Tomatoes) or just Everyone (YouTube comments) but in every case the thing I'm angry about is up there on the web in a place far more people will see written by someone with a far greater understanding of the issues. Even in the Mail's case, where the writer is often the focus of the anger rather than someone to share discontent with, the chances are I've found this article through someone's response to it. I start writing something for my own blog and realise I've nothing to add to the conversation.
Here are some titles for posts I thought I wanted to write and then realised I really didn't. "The Census Campaign." "There Are Twenty-Six Bishops In The House of Lords." "Why Ellen Page is the best thing to happen to Feminist Cinema." "The Census Campaign." "Why James Cameron is the best thing to happen to Feminist Cinema." "Polyamorous Love: Where The Hell Do I Stand On This?" "Videogames as an Art Form." "The Census Campaign." "For the love Of God, people, read about The Census Campaign."
(The convention in British English seems to be 'learned' for the past tense and 'learnt' for the past participle so that should have read "I've learnt" both times up the top there. That's something I learned today.)
I don't have anything new to say. Perhaps it's worth putting someone else's arguments in my words to make me think about the issue. Perhaps it's just worth saying I support their cause. That second one would be true if more people read this blog, but my stats page suggests not a lot of people care about what I have to say. I know, this blog is only two months old, hasn't yet reached double digits in number of posts and I'm not exactly pushing it anywhere. A couple of nods on facebook and twitter, but nowhere beyond my online territory. My rationale for this falls somewhere between "I'm a perfectionist and don't want anyone reading my shit until it's flawless." and "I care far more about the opinion of strangers than I wish to admit and don't want anyone reading my shit until I can defend it." Either way, as much as I'd love everyone in the world to homepage this site, I don't want a larger readership until I'm comfortable with the direction this blog is headed.
The intent was to be angry, to give my words an emotional charge. That didn't work as I'd hoped. For me to be happier here, the intent needs to change.
The first post in this blog, the original statement of intent, is the post I'm happiest with. It's not angry at all. It's a lovely little tale of a time when I was young and lost and found a small place on the internet to shelter from the real world for a while. It's a story of growth and maturity, or so we thought since it seems maturing as a person does not mean shouting about politics instead of whining about girls. In fact, to jump from one to the other thinking it would instantly make my writing more worthwhile feels as immature as ever. Leaving LiveJournal was an important step in improving my writing, I have no doubt about that, but a complete paradigm shift wasn't the way to go.
There are some things that really do interest me, that I hope I could write about in personal, interesting ways and I think those should be the focus of the blog. Since starting this I've joined the British Humanist Association and some time before March 27th I really should get that post about the Census Campaign out. I've also spent a lot of time thinking about Video Games as an art form and as the future of entertainment. My opinions there are as strong - if not stronger - as my opinions on the monarchy. Certainly as much as I love voting and its systems (and guys: I seriously love voting) I have far more to say on the subject of Motion Controls.
The intent is changing. In time, when I think of a good one, the title will change but until then we can all sit here in polite silence, uncomfortably aware of the mismatch.
Saturday 19 February 2011
How to vote?
First off, here's a link to the Guardian article explaining the differences between the current and proposed voting systems. I'm now going to explain them all again, in my own words, in the hope that doing so will grant me a firmer understanding and maybe even help me decide which I prefer.
Come May, we're going to have a referendum on how we elect members of parliament in this country. Our current system is known as First Past The Post. In this system every citizen chooses one candidate they prefer in their own constituency and whichever candidate gets the most votes becomes their representative and gets that seat in parliament. By convention whichever party wins over half the seats (currently 650) becomes the winning party and their leader becomes Prime Minister. Or, like we have at the moment, no party gains the necessary 326 seats so two parties from opposite sides of the political spectrum form a coalition and nobody is happy with the result.
So if there's four parties running, and the vote is split
A: 28%
B: 25%
C: 24%
D: 23%
then A wins the seat and nearly three quarters of the population get a candidate they didn't want.
I know I'd prefer some sort of AV system, I just don't know which one yet.
In its simplest form, Alternative Voting means rather than choosing one candidate you prefer, you rank the candidates in order of preference. If no candidate is ranked first by at least fifty percent of the people, the candidate with the least first preference votes is eliminated and the ballots for them are split across the survivors according to second preference. Still no fifty percent? Eliminate the least popular candidate and split their votes again amongst the survivors by second (or, if necessary, third) preference. Keep going until we have a winner.
So let's try those numbers from before again.
A: 28%
B: 25%
C: 24%
D: 23%
No winner here, so we eliminate D and split their votes. Let's assume A is very Right wing, B is moderate Right, C is moderate Left and D is very Left. Most of the second place votes from D will go to C. New figures look like this:
A: 31%
B: 32%
C: 37%
Oh how the tables have turned. The far left candidate has been removed but at least they won't be stuck with a far right representative. Still no winner so lets remove the A from the equation, with most of their votes going to B.
B: 57%
C: 43%
Big Winner! The moderate Right Wing candidate from the B Party takes the seat. B's popularity increased by 7% when D got eliminated and by a further 25% when A dropped out, while C's popularity went up by 13% then 6%.
Perhaps all 24% of C's first choice voters really hated that B guy and put him last place on their ballots. Even in this extreme case only 30% of the voters ended up with the candidate they least wanted. I know politics isn't a straight line from right to left, but it's still more likely that moderate left wingers would prefer a moderate right wing candidate to a far right one, perhaps also to the far left wing choice.
So that's Alternative Voting, but what about AV+?
One issue with AV is that it's not proportional. That is to say, if 5% of people across the whole country want to vote for the Green Party then shouldn't 5% of the house of commons be made up of members of the Green Party? Well, yes, I can see why that makes sense but at the same time no. People don't just vote for a candidate because of his or her party's politics, but also because of their own personal politics. It might be that Simon Wright of Norwich South is a member of the Liberal Democrats, but he opposes the party view on the issue of the Student Loans cap. Voters who want Simon Wright in and not just any Liberal Democrat should have the right to elect him, not whomever the party chooses.
This is where AV+ comes in. It works just like AV as described above, but we all get a second vote, for a party, not for any individual. This second vote is added up country wide and each party gets a few extra seats in parliament, based on the percentage of this national vote they won. Prefer Simon Wright to Charles Clarke but Labour to Lib Dem? AV+ has you covered.
Well this seems fairer than First Past The Post. I'm not sure though, will the Bonus MPs be voted for by name, or chosen by the winning party? I'm not too keen on anyone getting into the House of Commons without the general public wanting them - specifically them - there. There's complaints that this will cause two types of MP, though I'm not sure that's such an issue. The vast majority of MP's primary focus will be representing the people of their own constituency, with a small minority devoted to more national concerns.
Another change AV+ could bring is greater power to smaller parties, the ability to win votes even without candidates. Welshmen living in England could still throw their support behind Plaid Cymru, for example. I'm taking all the following figures from Wikipedia: The BNP ran candidates in just over half the consituencies in the last general election. None of them got elected, thankfully, but they did get nearly 2% of the total votes. On the flawed assumption that their popularity is just as strong across the whole country, 4%(ish) could be enough to win them one of the bonus seats.
I might be wrong, you might only be able to vote for a party who ran a candidate in your constituency. Even in that case, the UK Independance Party got 3% of the votes without any candidates elected. The Green party won their first seat but got 1% of the vote, so in an entirely proportional system with 650 seats they're owed five more MPs. The Liberal Democrats actually got 23% of the votes winning only 9% of the seats, while the Conservative Party got 36% of the votes but just shy of half the seats. The proportional element of AV+ would grant voices to these smaller parties and as much as I dislike the BNP and as much as I disagree with the Greens on some points, I do think this is a fairer version of democracy.
Which brings us at last to the Single Transferable Vote.
Under this system each constituency can now support more than one MP, the number depending upon the population of the constituency. You rank your MPs by order of preference, just like in AV. To win one of the seats available, a candidate must gain a certain number of votes (one more than the number of votes cast divided by (seats available + 1), so with 50,000 votes cast and three seats available, a candidate would need (50,000 / 4) + 1 = 12,501 votes to get a seat. Once a candidate has that magic number, any excessive first choice votes would go to that voter's second choice. All the while the least popular candidate is having their votes divided between the more successful ones, AV style.
What I'm not sure about is how you determine which votes count towards the candidate, and which are considered Excessive. Let's say the first 12,501 voters for candidate A put candidate B as their second choice, but every A voter from then on had candidate C as their second preference, does C get all the excess votes? Maybe we just take a random selection from the A pile until it's down to just 12,501. Ireland and Malta, apparently, use variants on the Random system. There's a 'Gregory method' where the excess is transfered over as fractions of votes, but these systems need computers to count and cannot feasibly be done by hand.
Single Transferable can be even more proportional than AV+ while allowing voters to still choose individual candidates, rather than parties, but will mean either fewer, larger constituencies or a much greater number of MPs and a radical overhaul of how votes are physically made and counted.
So I can see the advantages and disadvantages of AV+ and of STV. I still can't decide between them but I'm swaying in favour of STV. I'm not sure that matters for a while though, as the May referendum seems to be simply FPTP vs AV, with none of this Plus or Single Transferable stuff getting in the way, and I know where I stand on FPTP vs AV.
Vote Yes to the Alternative Vote.
--
In a twitter conversation I've been having while writing this, @justinpickard mentioned the possibility of abolishing the House of Lords (not outright. He's a clever chap and put more thought into it than that). I do have some issues with the House of Lords. The Hereditary peerages and the Lords Spiritual are two things I dislike. Actually, I wasn't keen on any of them avoiding popular election, but as @newsmary pointed out, some of them are there on the merit of knowing or doing useful things, rather than because they smile nicely on camera and know which promises to break without upsetting too many people. It's become pretty clear to me that I really don't know enough about the House of Lords to make any sort of informed comment, so I think I'm going to read up on that next and then tell you all about how the Lords works. Maye that's a better use for this blog: an excuse to learn about politics rather than these occasional polemics against religion's influence on society. Don't pretend you hadn't noticed that trend forming.
We're going to need a new title.
Come May, we're going to have a referendum on how we elect members of parliament in this country. Our current system is known as First Past The Post. In this system every citizen chooses one candidate they prefer in their own constituency and whichever candidate gets the most votes becomes their representative and gets that seat in parliament. By convention whichever party wins over half the seats (currently 650) becomes the winning party and their leader becomes Prime Minister. Or, like we have at the moment, no party gains the necessary 326 seats so two parties from opposite sides of the political spectrum form a coalition and nobody is happy with the result.
So if there's four parties running, and the vote is split
A: 28%
B: 25%
C: 24%
D: 23%
then A wins the seat and nearly three quarters of the population get a candidate they didn't want.
I know I'd prefer some sort of AV system, I just don't know which one yet.
In its simplest form, Alternative Voting means rather than choosing one candidate you prefer, you rank the candidates in order of preference. If no candidate is ranked first by at least fifty percent of the people, the candidate with the least first preference votes is eliminated and the ballots for them are split across the survivors according to second preference. Still no fifty percent? Eliminate the least popular candidate and split their votes again amongst the survivors by second (or, if necessary, third) preference. Keep going until we have a winner.
So let's try those numbers from before again.
A: 28%
B: 25%
C: 24%
D: 23%
No winner here, so we eliminate D and split their votes. Let's assume A is very Right wing, B is moderate Right, C is moderate Left and D is very Left. Most of the second place votes from D will go to C. New figures look like this:
A: 31%
B: 32%
C: 37%
Oh how the tables have turned. The far left candidate has been removed but at least they won't be stuck with a far right representative. Still no winner so lets remove the A from the equation, with most of their votes going to B.
B: 57%
C: 43%
Big Winner! The moderate Right Wing candidate from the B Party takes the seat. B's popularity increased by 7% when D got eliminated and by a further 25% when A dropped out, while C's popularity went up by 13% then 6%.
Perhaps all 24% of C's first choice voters really hated that B guy and put him last place on their ballots. Even in this extreme case only 30% of the voters ended up with the candidate they least wanted. I know politics isn't a straight line from right to left, but it's still more likely that moderate left wingers would prefer a moderate right wing candidate to a far right one, perhaps also to the far left wing choice.
So that's Alternative Voting, but what about AV+?
One issue with AV is that it's not proportional. That is to say, if 5% of people across the whole country want to vote for the Green Party then shouldn't 5% of the house of commons be made up of members of the Green Party? Well, yes, I can see why that makes sense but at the same time no. People don't just vote for a candidate because of his or her party's politics, but also because of their own personal politics. It might be that Simon Wright of Norwich South is a member of the Liberal Democrats, but he opposes the party view on the issue of the Student Loans cap. Voters who want Simon Wright in and not just any Liberal Democrat should have the right to elect him, not whomever the party chooses.
This is where AV+ comes in. It works just like AV as described above, but we all get a second vote, for a party, not for any individual. This second vote is added up country wide and each party gets a few extra seats in parliament, based on the percentage of this national vote they won. Prefer Simon Wright to Charles Clarke but Labour to Lib Dem? AV+ has you covered.
Well this seems fairer than First Past The Post. I'm not sure though, will the Bonus MPs be voted for by name, or chosen by the winning party? I'm not too keen on anyone getting into the House of Commons without the general public wanting them - specifically them - there. There's complaints that this will cause two types of MP, though I'm not sure that's such an issue. The vast majority of MP's primary focus will be representing the people of their own constituency, with a small minority devoted to more national concerns.
Another change AV+ could bring is greater power to smaller parties, the ability to win votes even without candidates. Welshmen living in England could still throw their support behind Plaid Cymru, for example. I'm taking all the following figures from Wikipedia: The BNP ran candidates in just over half the consituencies in the last general election. None of them got elected, thankfully, but they did get nearly 2% of the total votes. On the flawed assumption that their popularity is just as strong across the whole country, 4%(ish) could be enough to win them one of the bonus seats.
I might be wrong, you might only be able to vote for a party who ran a candidate in your constituency. Even in that case, the UK Independance Party got 3% of the votes without any candidates elected. The Green party won their first seat but got 1% of the vote, so in an entirely proportional system with 650 seats they're owed five more MPs. The Liberal Democrats actually got 23% of the votes winning only 9% of the seats, while the Conservative Party got 36% of the votes but just shy of half the seats. The proportional element of AV+ would grant voices to these smaller parties and as much as I dislike the BNP and as much as I disagree with the Greens on some points, I do think this is a fairer version of democracy.
Which brings us at last to the Single Transferable Vote.
Under this system each constituency can now support more than one MP, the number depending upon the population of the constituency. You rank your MPs by order of preference, just like in AV. To win one of the seats available, a candidate must gain a certain number of votes (one more than the number of votes cast divided by (seats available + 1), so with 50,000 votes cast and three seats available, a candidate would need (50,000 / 4) + 1 = 12,501 votes to get a seat. Once a candidate has that magic number, any excessive first choice votes would go to that voter's second choice. All the while the least popular candidate is having their votes divided between the more successful ones, AV style.
What I'm not sure about is how you determine which votes count towards the candidate, and which are considered Excessive. Let's say the first 12,501 voters for candidate A put candidate B as their second choice, but every A voter from then on had candidate C as their second preference, does C get all the excess votes? Maybe we just take a random selection from the A pile until it's down to just 12,501. Ireland and Malta, apparently, use variants on the Random system. There's a 'Gregory method' where the excess is transfered over as fractions of votes, but these systems need computers to count and cannot feasibly be done by hand.
Single Transferable can be even more proportional than AV+ while allowing voters to still choose individual candidates, rather than parties, but will mean either fewer, larger constituencies or a much greater number of MPs and a radical overhaul of how votes are physically made and counted.
So I can see the advantages and disadvantages of AV+ and of STV. I still can't decide between them but I'm swaying in favour of STV. I'm not sure that matters for a while though, as the May referendum seems to be simply FPTP vs AV, with none of this Plus or Single Transferable stuff getting in the way, and I know where I stand on FPTP vs AV.
Vote Yes to the Alternative Vote.
--
In a twitter conversation I've been having while writing this, @justinpickard mentioned the possibility of abolishing the House of Lords (not outright. He's a clever chap and put more thought into it than that). I do have some issues with the House of Lords. The Hereditary peerages and the Lords Spiritual are two things I dislike. Actually, I wasn't keen on any of them avoiding popular election, but as @newsmary pointed out, some of them are there on the merit of knowing or doing useful things, rather than because they smile nicely on camera and know which promises to break without upsetting too many people. It's become pretty clear to me that I really don't know enough about the House of Lords to make any sort of informed comment, so I think I'm going to read up on that next and then tell you all about how the Lords works. Maye that's a better use for this blog: an excuse to learn about politics rather than these occasional polemics against religion's influence on society. Don't pretend you hadn't noticed that trend forming.
We're going to need a new title.
Tuesday 15 February 2011
Lessons in Hate and Violence
"We should be just as concerned about the treatment of Muslim children as we are about white children." - Ann Cryer, Keighley MP 1997-2010.
The mixing of religion and ethnicity there is one of the things winding me up about this programme I'm watching. In a documentary about faith schools, that statement carries an implication that White Children are synonymous with Christian children. That's the side of the mix up that irritates me. I'm white and I'm quite definitely not Christian. It's the other side that actually scares me, that Arabic and Middle-Eastern children are essentially Muslim. With support growing for xenophobic institutions like the EDL and the BNP, with our own prime minister announcing multiculturalism has failed, this is the worst time to be judging people based on appearance.
Oh Dispatches, you are raising such an important point, why must you tackle it so badly? I'm watching "Lessons in Hate and Violence", detailing their undercover investigations into Islamic faith schools in the UK and I am infuriated by the leading questions asked by the presenter. Questions like "Some of the teachings we've shown you, do you think they could be described as 'Hate Teachings'" asked to a teacher at the Muslim Education Centre of Oxford. I really feel like it weakens Dispatches' argument, rather than strengthening it. The evidence of malpractice, intolerance and abuse is all there on the secretly filmed tapes, plain as day. Why even bother interviewing people if you're going to put words in their mouths like that? It suggests a lack of faith in the strength of the material where it really shouldn't.
I'm being a little harsh, I know. It's actually quite a good documentary about an important subject with some horrible footage that needed to be shown but it's these little things here and there that distract me from the main point, that these unregulated or poorly regulated schools and madrassa are teaching messages of hate, are abusing the children while they do it and are getting away with it.
I'm a secularist. I believe religion is personal and religious institutions should not have an influence on today's society. I don't think we need a God to teach us ethics or to bring us together. One of the many things I dislike about Cameron's proposed Big Society is the increased emphasis on community run schools because a lot of them will be faith schools allowed to choose their own curriculum and discriminate against non-religious or differently-religious staff when hiring. It's not that I think the schools featured in "Lessons in Hate and Violence" are representative of all muslim faith schools or of faith schools in general. I don't like the idea that children are being taught not to think for themselves and that there exists authority that should not be questioned.
Honestly, I think education is one aspect of government that cannot be delegated to local councils and communities and certainly not to agenda driven religious or political groups. Education is far too important not to be regulated nationally. Though thinking about it, I'd like most aspects of government to be regulated nationally. I like big government. But education most of all.
There's a quote from The West Wing I'm going to end on. I was hoping to find it on YouTube but you'll have to read it instead.
"Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes, we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet. "
The mixing of religion and ethnicity there is one of the things winding me up about this programme I'm watching. In a documentary about faith schools, that statement carries an implication that White Children are synonymous with Christian children. That's the side of the mix up that irritates me. I'm white and I'm quite definitely not Christian. It's the other side that actually scares me, that Arabic and Middle-Eastern children are essentially Muslim. With support growing for xenophobic institutions like the EDL and the BNP, with our own prime minister announcing multiculturalism has failed, this is the worst time to be judging people based on appearance.
Oh Dispatches, you are raising such an important point, why must you tackle it so badly? I'm watching "Lessons in Hate and Violence", detailing their undercover investigations into Islamic faith schools in the UK and I am infuriated by the leading questions asked by the presenter. Questions like "Some of the teachings we've shown you, do you think they could be described as 'Hate Teachings'" asked to a teacher at the Muslim Education Centre of Oxford. I really feel like it weakens Dispatches' argument, rather than strengthening it. The evidence of malpractice, intolerance and abuse is all there on the secretly filmed tapes, plain as day. Why even bother interviewing people if you're going to put words in their mouths like that? It suggests a lack of faith in the strength of the material where it really shouldn't.
I'm being a little harsh, I know. It's actually quite a good documentary about an important subject with some horrible footage that needed to be shown but it's these little things here and there that distract me from the main point, that these unregulated or poorly regulated schools and madrassa are teaching messages of hate, are abusing the children while they do it and are getting away with it.
I'm a secularist. I believe religion is personal and religious institutions should not have an influence on today's society. I don't think we need a God to teach us ethics or to bring us together. One of the many things I dislike about Cameron's proposed Big Society is the increased emphasis on community run schools because a lot of them will be faith schools allowed to choose their own curriculum and discriminate against non-religious or differently-religious staff when hiring. It's not that I think the schools featured in "Lessons in Hate and Violence" are representative of all muslim faith schools or of faith schools in general. I don't like the idea that children are being taught not to think for themselves and that there exists authority that should not be questioned.
Honestly, I think education is one aspect of government that cannot be delegated to local councils and communities and certainly not to agenda driven religious or political groups. Education is far too important not to be regulated nationally. Though thinking about it, I'd like most aspects of government to be regulated nationally. I like big government. But education most of all.
There's a quote from The West Wing I'm going to end on. I was hoping to find it on YouTube but you'll have to read it instead.
"Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes, we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet. "
Wednesday 2 February 2011
Equal Love
This morning the European Court of Human Rights heard an application to end the bans on Gay Marriage and Heterosexual Civil Partnerships in the UK. I have never quite understood the argument against Gay Marriage. I think it's got something to do with gay love not being as pure as heterolove, right? Those gays would get it all wrong and corrupt our precious institution. Except that doesn't sound true at all. In fact it sounds kind of insulting. I guess it's to do with parenthood and child raising then. Maybe there needs to be a separation between Marriage and Partnerships since it's illegal in Europe to have children outside of wedloc- No, wait, wrong again. Maybe it's because the bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman, though I highly doubt that in a secular society like Great Britain's the law would choose religion over human rights.
I just don't see it. Personally I find the term marriage to be full of religious connotations and I'd rather have Civil Partnership or Civil Union be the only legal term for these two identical situations. Christians and others could still hold big church weddings and declare themselves married, but that would all be flavour, not law. I suspect most people would still favour the term Marriage.
I wanted to look up non-religious arguments against gay marriage so I turned to wikipedia, where facts are laid out straight and bias is non-existant but the page for LGBT Rights Opposition has very little to say about the non-religious kind. A statement that some undefined people don't think children should be exposed to LGBT issues and some data suggesting that LGBT persons on average suffer from poorer mental health than their hetero neighbours, likely because those neighbours bullied and harrassed them. Okay, that first bit is crap possibly with religious motivation and that second bit is believable but the bullying only occurs because the LGBT community are treated in the eyes of the law as well as public opinion as different, as proved by having a seperate Civil Union law for them. Lets change those laws, gradually public opinion will follow and eventually everything will get better for everyone forever.
I am ignoring the religious arguments because religion should not influence the law, not on a rights issue like this, but lets say the law is changed, does that mean Churches should have to officiate gay weddings? This is where I start having to question my beliefs. I don't think governments have the right to tell people what to think. How to act maybe, but our thoughts, our likes and dislikes, our beliefs and faiths are the core of who we are and should not be changed by force even when they make us hateful Fred Phelps style homophobes, twisting a message of goodwill for our own disgusting agendas.
I have to look at the recent court decision against the christian B&B owners Hazelmary and Peter Bull, who turned a couple away after discovering they were gay. They were found guilty of discrimination and I agree with the court's decision. The Bull's beliefs shouldn't be weighed too heavily in this case, it's their actions that are important here but is refusing to officiate a wedding the same as refusing to provide accommodation?
Marriage with all it's rituals, rights and rites has long been considered a large part of religion's role in society. I've not read it cover to cover but I don't think the bible has much to say on owning a Bed and Breakfast. Christian Innkeepers, yes - they should all keep a small stable out back just in case - but nothing on B&Bs. Asking to rent a room for the night does not and should not compromise anyone's religious values but asking to be married in the laws of their faith does.
For the record, Majority Of The World's Religions, I think you're wrong but if the LGBT community agree not to force you to perform the ceremony until you're ready, can't you just let them call it marriage?
I just don't see it. Personally I find the term marriage to be full of religious connotations and I'd rather have Civil Partnership or Civil Union be the only legal term for these two identical situations. Christians and others could still hold big church weddings and declare themselves married, but that would all be flavour, not law. I suspect most people would still favour the term Marriage.
I wanted to look up non-religious arguments against gay marriage so I turned to wikipedia, where facts are laid out straight and bias is non-existant but the page for LGBT Rights Opposition has very little to say about the non-religious kind. A statement that some undefined people don't think children should be exposed to LGBT issues and some data suggesting that LGBT persons on average suffer from poorer mental health than their hetero neighbours, likely because those neighbours bullied and harrassed them. Okay, that first bit is crap possibly with religious motivation and that second bit is believable but the bullying only occurs because the LGBT community are treated in the eyes of the law as well as public opinion as different, as proved by having a seperate Civil Union law for them. Lets change those laws, gradually public opinion will follow and eventually everything will get better for everyone forever.
I am ignoring the religious arguments because religion should not influence the law, not on a rights issue like this, but lets say the law is changed, does that mean Churches should have to officiate gay weddings? This is where I start having to question my beliefs. I don't think governments have the right to tell people what to think. How to act maybe, but our thoughts, our likes and dislikes, our beliefs and faiths are the core of who we are and should not be changed by force even when they make us hateful Fred Phelps style homophobes, twisting a message of goodwill for our own disgusting agendas.
I have to look at the recent court decision against the christian B&B owners Hazelmary and Peter Bull, who turned a couple away after discovering they were gay. They were found guilty of discrimination and I agree with the court's decision. The Bull's beliefs shouldn't be weighed too heavily in this case, it's their actions that are important here but is refusing to officiate a wedding the same as refusing to provide accommodation?
Marriage with all it's rituals, rights and rites has long been considered a large part of religion's role in society. I've not read it cover to cover but I don't think the bible has much to say on owning a Bed and Breakfast. Christian Innkeepers, yes - they should all keep a small stable out back just in case - but nothing on B&Bs. Asking to rent a room for the night does not and should not compromise anyone's religious values but asking to be married in the laws of their faith does.
For the record, Majority Of The World's Religions, I think you're wrong but if the LGBT community agree not to force you to perform the ceremony until you're ready, can't you just let them call it marriage?
Saturday 22 January 2011
10 o'Clock Live
Well okay, I'll admit it was a mistake to start a blog in the same week I got Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. I did manage to break away from the game long enough to watch Channel 4's new comedic politics show, 10 o'clock Live and that made me a little angry, so I'll write about that. Fortunately I didn't watch it live and had a chance to see my twitter feed's damning of it first, thus lowering my expectations enough to find it mildly amusing in places.
David Mitchell was good. I don't really have problem with anything David Mitchell did. If the whole show had been David Mitchell and C4 renamed it The David Mitchell Gets Annoyed At People While An Audience Cheers Him On Show I would have declared it a resounding success, but unfortunately Mr Mitchell was let down by his co-hosts.
Sarah Palin has been in the news this week defending her campaign rhetoric and use of the term 'blood libel' in the wake of the Tuscon shootings, so Charlie Brooker gave us pre-recorded segment on her which started with a brief reminder of who she is and then continued with... well, nothing. It stopped after that. I understand the need for filler segments in a live show but this felt quite empty, just an excuse for a few jokes about how she's right wing and female, as if anyone who sat down to watch 10 o'clock Live didn't already know that
My intelligence was insulted even more by Lauren Laverne's celebrity news look at the independance of southern Sudan. Maybe it was meant as a satire of gossip shows, but we all know celebrity gossip isn't real news. Even they would have some tact if they tried covering an event like this. Maybe it's a statement on the youth of today's apathy towards global news. Except, this is a news show aimed at today's youth, isn't it?
That was, incidently, the only time Lauren Laverne was allowed to give any news or attempt comedy. The rest of the time she - presumably as the only female presenter - was given the role of mother, keeping the others in line so the ad-breaks happened on time.
Jimmy Carr, wearing a very fine suit, was exactly how you would expect Jimmy Carr to be. My problem with Jimmy Carr on this show is the same as my problem with Jimmy Carr on any show, including his live ones: he is a lot wittier than he is funny. I say this as a fan. I like Jimmy Carr, I don't mean to attack him, but he's at his worst when he's working from a script. He has an incredibly sharp wit and this doesn't show at all in segments like the holiday guide to Tunisia (which, like Laverne's World News Now, assumed me to be a lethargic eighteen year old only watching the show because I'd lost the remote).
I don't mind that his interview with scientist Bjorn Lomberg favoured humour over science any more than I mind David Mitchell's populist approach to questioning David Willetts over student fees. A comedian's job is to be funny. Sure they should be raising issues on a show like this but no-one is expecting them to solve them. I just want to be treated with a little more respect. I'll tune in next week, don't worry about that, but I flatter myself thinking myself intelligent, Channel 4, it's only polite you think that of me too.
David Mitchell was good. I don't really have problem with anything David Mitchell did. If the whole show had been David Mitchell and C4 renamed it The David Mitchell Gets Annoyed At People While An Audience Cheers Him On Show I would have declared it a resounding success, but unfortunately Mr Mitchell was let down by his co-hosts.
Sarah Palin has been in the news this week defending her campaign rhetoric and use of the term 'blood libel' in the wake of the Tuscon shootings, so Charlie Brooker gave us pre-recorded segment on her which started with a brief reminder of who she is and then continued with... well, nothing. It stopped after that. I understand the need for filler segments in a live show but this felt quite empty, just an excuse for a few jokes about how she's right wing and female, as if anyone who sat down to watch 10 o'clock Live didn't already know that
My intelligence was insulted even more by Lauren Laverne's celebrity news look at the independance of southern Sudan. Maybe it was meant as a satire of gossip shows, but we all know celebrity gossip isn't real news. Even they would have some tact if they tried covering an event like this. Maybe it's a statement on the youth of today's apathy towards global news. Except, this is a news show aimed at today's youth, isn't it?
That was, incidently, the only time Lauren Laverne was allowed to give any news or attempt comedy. The rest of the time she - presumably as the only female presenter - was given the role of mother, keeping the others in line so the ad-breaks happened on time.
Jimmy Carr, wearing a very fine suit, was exactly how you would expect Jimmy Carr to be. My problem with Jimmy Carr on this show is the same as my problem with Jimmy Carr on any show, including his live ones: he is a lot wittier than he is funny. I say this as a fan. I like Jimmy Carr, I don't mean to attack him, but he's at his worst when he's working from a script. He has an incredibly sharp wit and this doesn't show at all in segments like the holiday guide to Tunisia (which, like Laverne's World News Now, assumed me to be a lethargic eighteen year old only watching the show because I'd lost the remote).
I don't mind that his interview with scientist Bjorn Lomberg favoured humour over science any more than I mind David Mitchell's populist approach to questioning David Willetts over student fees. A comedian's job is to be funny. Sure they should be raising issues on a show like this but no-one is expecting them to solve them. I just want to be treated with a little more respect. I'll tune in next week, don't worry about that, but I flatter myself thinking myself intelligent, Channel 4, it's only polite you think that of me too.
Tuesday 11 January 2011
Democracy and Monarchy
I don't mind that my party lost the 2010 general election. I wish they hadn't, sure, but I don't feel cheated. In fact, the candidate I voted for won his constituency (Norwich South) and his party formed a coalition with another party of losers. Together they claim to have won. I am not at all happy with this result but they've played by rules I judge to be reasonably fair and I certainly feel my vote counted for something. Perhaps if I voted for Labour, I'd feel different. Perhaps next time when I may well vote for Labour, I'll feel different, but that's a thought for another time.
What does concern me is that David Cameron is in the highest possible elected office in this country and yet is not the Head of State. Elizabeth of Windsor claims that honour, along with the conflicting role as Supreme Governess of the Church of England. The monarchy may have highly restricted powers and duties, but chief among those duties is official representation of the United Kingdom.
I don't want David Cameron representing me. I feel a little betrayed by the Lib Dems for allowing this to happen, but I'll take it because I know that in four years time I'll get another chance to pick my parliament. Not only will I never get a say in choosing the next monarch, I am also offended by the rules regarding succession.
This royal family which claims to represent me overlooks two natural rights I feel strongly about: freedom of religion and gender equality. A son inherits before a daughter and if you're not protestant you can't inherit at all. I can understand hereditary powers: The tribal chieftan's son had the best training to become the next tribal chief. The tribal chieftan wants to provide for his immediate family and naming his son heir is the best way to do that. That made sense two thousand years ago and tradition is nothing if not persistant. Of course the availability of education for everyone means the noble classes can no longer be assumed the best choice to rule, and haven't been for a long time. I don't think that's news to anyone though.
What I cannot possibly understand is hereditary faith. This is a very personal matter unique to each individual and to name someone the next head of a church - again, with highly restricted powers and duties - upon their birth seems extremely absurd. In this country you are protected against descrimination based on gender or religion unless you plan to lead it. Only male protestants, please. Okay, we'll allow a woman this time, but don't expect us to like it.
Curious about public support for the monarchy I found an ICM report from 2009. I can't find the poll itself so I don't know how many people were asked, what the demographic splits were like or even how the questions were phrased, but the results given in the article state 18% favour Britain becoming a republic at the end of Elizabeth II's reign. That's disheartening for a republican like myself, but the news isn't all bad: At 89% the vast majority of us would like to see women and men treated equally in succession.
Interestingly 81% of respondants would like to see the rule banning catholics from the throne removed, which is something I argued in favour of merely moments ago, but now having read comments in this article I may be forced to reconsider my view there. Roman Catholics accept the Pope not only as the head of their religion, but as the infallible vicar of Christ on earth. He is also the head of the Vatican state, which could be seen as making Britain a subject of the Vatican. I would not like the Vatican to gain a greater influence on this country any more than I am happy with the Church of England's currently inflated sense of importance.
No, I think it's far better to say we abandon the idea of monarchy altogether. I'll accept a catholic president if the power still stays with the people. We can always get rid of her when she tries to outlaw condoms.
What does concern me is that David Cameron is in the highest possible elected office in this country and yet is not the Head of State. Elizabeth of Windsor claims that honour, along with the conflicting role as Supreme Governess of the Church of England. The monarchy may have highly restricted powers and duties, but chief among those duties is official representation of the United Kingdom.
I don't want David Cameron representing me. I feel a little betrayed by the Lib Dems for allowing this to happen, but I'll take it because I know that in four years time I'll get another chance to pick my parliament. Not only will I never get a say in choosing the next monarch, I am also offended by the rules regarding succession.
This royal family which claims to represent me overlooks two natural rights I feel strongly about: freedom of religion and gender equality. A son inherits before a daughter and if you're not protestant you can't inherit at all. I can understand hereditary powers: The tribal chieftan's son had the best training to become the next tribal chief. The tribal chieftan wants to provide for his immediate family and naming his son heir is the best way to do that. That made sense two thousand years ago and tradition is nothing if not persistant. Of course the availability of education for everyone means the noble classes can no longer be assumed the best choice to rule, and haven't been for a long time. I don't think that's news to anyone though.
What I cannot possibly understand is hereditary faith. This is a very personal matter unique to each individual and to name someone the next head of a church - again, with highly restricted powers and duties - upon their birth seems extremely absurd. In this country you are protected against descrimination based on gender or religion unless you plan to lead it. Only male protestants, please. Okay, we'll allow a woman this time, but don't expect us to like it.
Curious about public support for the monarchy I found an ICM report from 2009. I can't find the poll itself so I don't know how many people were asked, what the demographic splits were like or even how the questions were phrased, but the results given in the article state 18% favour Britain becoming a republic at the end of Elizabeth II's reign. That's disheartening for a republican like myself, but the news isn't all bad: At 89% the vast majority of us would like to see women and men treated equally in succession.
Interestingly 81% of respondants would like to see the rule banning catholics from the throne removed, which is something I argued in favour of merely moments ago, but now having read comments in this article I may be forced to reconsider my view there. Roman Catholics accept the Pope not only as the head of their religion, but as the infallible vicar of Christ on earth. He is also the head of the Vatican state, which could be seen as making Britain a subject of the Vatican. I would not like the Vatican to gain a greater influence on this country any more than I am happy with the Church of England's currently inflated sense of importance.
No, I think it's far better to say we abandon the idea of monarchy altogether. I'll accept a catholic president if the power still stays with the people. We can always get rid of her when she tries to outlaw condoms.
Monday 10 January 2011
A statement of intent
So this is Write Angry. That title may change. In fact, it almost certainly will. It may become a pun, using the word 'Write' in place of 'Right' somehow, though that is unlikely. The title is a statement of intent. I have an idea of what I'd like this blog to be but ideas grow or shift or die. When the intent changes, the title goes with it.
I say 'an idea', what I mean is 'two ideas'. I have the sensible, realistic idea which this introductory post aims to explain and I have the secret wishful idea where the blog is read by thousands, I become revered and respected and though I don't actually lead any revolutions, the heroes of successful - and peaceful - uprisings around the world cite me as inspiration.
Back in this world, I've kept a LiveJournal for eight years now and for five or six of those I updated frequently. There's a fair few posts I'm proud to have authored but there are also a great many more written because I was bored or because I hadn't updated in a while and felt I had to.
My little corner of LiveJournal is dying and that's sad for me to watch. Of the sixty-odd people whose journals I follow, only a handful still update and even fewer of them I care about reading. Even I update only once or twice a month these days. It's not so much that livejournal has gone out of fashion - though that's likely true as well - it's that livejournal served a purpose no longer needed by many of my friends there, and no longer needed by me.
Livejournal was an outlet when we felt stagnant. When we were heading nowhere, we headed there instead. It gave us a connection to other people in the same situation. At school they told us it didn't matter if we didn't know what we wanted to do in life. It would all work itself out. At college they were a little less optimistic and a little more disappointed in us for not having made our minds up yet. By the time we got to university it felt too late to be so directionless. I gained a BSc in Computing and still having no clear goals or ambitions, I started studying for a Master's degree. A couple of months into this course I hit my breaking point and dropped out, swearing off programming for life. It was so useful to have somewhere dozens of others wrote about how their grand plans hadn't worked out either.
We wrote about our failing lives and the fun we were having despite them. We filled the site with quizzes and memes, ideas for games and reviews of gigs. Whispered, friends-locked posts about secret crushes. Our favourite bands, our favourite films, our favourite lolcats. It was always personal, rarely political. We weren't outwardly disaffected or disinterested, we saved all that for the real world. I know this isn't true for everyone. It may not even be true for anyone else, but that's one of the things that LiveJournal was to me.
I don't feel the need to share that now. No, my life isn't sorted and I still want people to hear what I have to say but I think now I'd rather say things that might interest them, rather than writing about myself and expecting them to be interested anyway. I don't want a journal anymore, I want a voice.
There are subjects I have strong opinions on and want to write passionately about. There are subjects I consider important but have no strong opinion, and I hope debating them with myself (and hopefully with readers, eventually) will help foster passion. I want to write interesting pieces about the Separation of Church and State, about the British Monarchy, about Ethics, Sexuality, Art and Equality. I want to write detailed articles about science and pretend I know what I'm talking about. I want to write damning polemic against oppresive regimes and pretend I'm making a difference. I want to write often, I want to write well and I want to write angry.
I say 'an idea', what I mean is 'two ideas'. I have the sensible, realistic idea which this introductory post aims to explain and I have the secret wishful idea where the blog is read by thousands, I become revered and respected and though I don't actually lead any revolutions, the heroes of successful - and peaceful - uprisings around the world cite me as inspiration.
Back in this world, I've kept a LiveJournal for eight years now and for five or six of those I updated frequently. There's a fair few posts I'm proud to have authored but there are also a great many more written because I was bored or because I hadn't updated in a while and felt I had to.
My little corner of LiveJournal is dying and that's sad for me to watch. Of the sixty-odd people whose journals I follow, only a handful still update and even fewer of them I care about reading. Even I update only once or twice a month these days. It's not so much that livejournal has gone out of fashion - though that's likely true as well - it's that livejournal served a purpose no longer needed by many of my friends there, and no longer needed by me.
Livejournal was an outlet when we felt stagnant. When we were heading nowhere, we headed there instead. It gave us a connection to other people in the same situation. At school they told us it didn't matter if we didn't know what we wanted to do in life. It would all work itself out. At college they were a little less optimistic and a little more disappointed in us for not having made our minds up yet. By the time we got to university it felt too late to be so directionless. I gained a BSc in Computing and still having no clear goals or ambitions, I started studying for a Master's degree. A couple of months into this course I hit my breaking point and dropped out, swearing off programming for life. It was so useful to have somewhere dozens of others wrote about how their grand plans hadn't worked out either.
We wrote about our failing lives and the fun we were having despite them. We filled the site with quizzes and memes, ideas for games and reviews of gigs. Whispered, friends-locked posts about secret crushes. Our favourite bands, our favourite films, our favourite lolcats. It was always personal, rarely political. We weren't outwardly disaffected or disinterested, we saved all that for the real world. I know this isn't true for everyone. It may not even be true for anyone else, but that's one of the things that LiveJournal was to me.
I don't feel the need to share that now. No, my life isn't sorted and I still want people to hear what I have to say but I think now I'd rather say things that might interest them, rather than writing about myself and expecting them to be interested anyway. I don't want a journal anymore, I want a voice.
There are subjects I have strong opinions on and want to write passionately about. There are subjects I consider important but have no strong opinion, and I hope debating them with myself (and hopefully with readers, eventually) will help foster passion. I want to write interesting pieces about the Separation of Church and State, about the British Monarchy, about Ethics, Sexuality, Art and Equality. I want to write detailed articles about science and pretend I know what I'm talking about. I want to write damning polemic against oppresive regimes and pretend I'm making a difference. I want to write often, I want to write well and I want to write angry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)